I'm demanding things without payment and that makes me a looter. Really?? Tell me, wisdom man, what have I am demanded without payment? I've never taken a dime from anyone or not paid for what I've asked for. EVER! What I HAVE done is paid what has been demanded of me to fund things I don't care to fund via threat of force.
Rand wrote many non fiction books by the way, and some of us have read those as well. I am not protected by her and she didn't have a magic pen...she had a thinking brain with ideas that made sense. And you talk about those who hang out in here as if you're not one of them.
A does not equal B no matter how much you want to make it so. We should have a choice in what we pay for and don't pay for...right now I'm paying for a lot of other people's stuff. I'm not a looter, I'm a lootee. And who in here thinks they shouldn't need to worry about their roll in life?? What do you really mean by that comment anyway?

And we changed the 'deal' to better suit our expectations through the ballot box.

Barter is normal, and crying that you are being 'robbed' just as normal...that is what makes bartering fun.

You have to be thinking in the real world to understand what I am about to say...not in a fictional valley, in a work of fiction:

Every American citizen makes demands on government. We expect to have clean water at our demand, the lights to come on when we flip the switch, the police to arrive if we call, the firemen to put my burning house out, the sewer system to git rid of what we don't want, streets that are navigable, airplanes that don't run into each other every other minute, protection from foreign barbarians looting and sacking our towns....

That is the "A" side of an example earlier.

The "B" side is the government receiving funds in return for the services. As it stands now, they are not receiving enough to supply all of the services that we demand...hence the deficit.

Your argument is that you never agreed on paying anything, even though you will not tolerate losing any of those services. By being forced to pay something, you are living in a collectivist world, and that is the end of the debate.

I say that you are demanding things without payment, and that makes you the 'looter'.

Before you get your panties all in a wad, I know that you will come back and say that you didn't mean to say that you shouldn't pay at all...but that you never got to barter about the amount.

But you have bartered, when you chose whom to represent you at the table. Fiscal conservatives have tried to tell us that there will be a reduction in services, to offset the reduction in taxes. Too few of us are OK with this...the 'looters' outshout the debate, and out-stuff the ballot boxes.

In short: nothing is as simple as the life in Galt's Gulch under the loving protection of Ayn and her magic pen. Real life can not be reduced to it has to be this, or it must be that.

Sometimes I think that some of the wonderful people that hang out in here, lose sight of the fact that we are all in love with a work of fiction, but that is 'what it is'...a fantasy world, where no one ever needs to worry about their role in life.

Ayn's 'got their back'.

Yes I live in a black and white world.
In the 1950s, the top marginal income
tax rate was 90%. Producers produced
and the government confiscated. Is that
what you mean by "the deal is set,and
both parties do their expected part"? I believe the
producers had a government gun to their
heads and were being robbed.

When was this "deal" agreed upon? And by what terms, and what percentage, and at what rate of increase? The deal that "is set" is I have to pay whatever they say and they can blow my money whatever wacky way they choose and if I don't comply then what I "expect" is that they come with guns.
There was plenty of collectivism in AS, what are you talking about? That was the point of the book, to point it out and see it for what it is. Gov intrusion, for the "greater good" at the expense of earners. "In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." THAT, my friend, IS the gray area you keep talking about. (If good compromises with evil, then the outcome will be evil...and gray.)

You are suggesting that America is 100% collectivism...and that there is 0% individualism to be found. And that is the only possible analysis.

You live in Rand's fictional novel, where there are no colors...just black and white. I love the novel, and the message...but I don't live between the pages, and ignore the complex world where we REALLY live. The 16th Amendment wasn't the beginning of government's taxing us for the purpose of fulfilling their obligations to the citizens.

You example of A and B closing a deal could easily be applied to taxation: we expect the government to provide certain services, and the government collects monies from us in payment. The deal is set, and both parties do their expected part.

Well said. It's like being pregnant. You either are or your not, there is no middle ground, no gray area.

I think, if you are interested, you should go back and re-listen. I pointed out spots in the video where I challenged how she framed her argument. I am not against her point of view, per se, rather-it's how she frames her argument. Since she is a professor, and this video is a good teaching moment, I prefer she apply Objectivism correctly when speaking about classic liberalism.

well stated

Sure. Let's start with income. In a society of free individuals trading in free association with other free individuals, income is based on contract, that is; (A) agrees to perform a certain amount of work and (B) agrees to pay (A) a certain amount of money in exchange. That money now belongs to (A) 100%. No one else has earned it and no one else has any claim to any part of it.

AR once wrote to the effect that he who initiates the use of physical force is wrong. Ergo, when the US government adopted the 16th amendment, it was telling (A) that his income no longer belonged to him but was being seized by the collective using physical force.

There can be no such thing as a little individualism or a little collectivism. It is either-or and no in-between. We became a collectivist state in 1913.

A quote from my not-favorite philosopher, Plato, sums up my beliefs well. He wrote in his Republic that "…And this is tyranny, which both by stealth and by force takes away what belongs to others…"

How can anyone perceive a middle ground here?

Hogwash!

Since you claim that there are only two possibilities (individualism or collectivism), and there is "no in-between", I challenge you to give me just one example of each that meets your own description.

"Man, apes, and chimpanzees are DNA connected in nature, but have some very important differences. Variations matter."


Nope. There is individualism or collectivism. There is no in-between. Either we have individual rights or we do not. The last 100 plus years have demonstrated that any attempt at compromise has always diminished individual rights. And now they are almost gone.

"the professor framed her argument to the "good of society."

No, she didn't.

She correctly pointed out that the producers in AS were good for the society, but the government overlooked this in their effort to bring them down. She never claimed that the producers were obligated to raise societal conditions, but that the moochers were obligated to bring the producers down...REGARDLESS of the impact on their society. Huge difference....

(Sigh)

"Firstly there is no such entity as "society"."

When did this happen? Better alert Aristotle....

"Secondly Readon's selfish actions benefitted other INDIVIDUALS who worked in his factories."

And the purchasers of his metal? He promoted his metal as beneficial to any steel user...that was his vision.

"Thiirdly, crony capitalism, fascism and socialism are all collectivist in nature and are all the same thing regardless of the variations."

Man, apes, and chimpanzees are DNA connected in nature, but have some very important differences. Variations matter.

There is no reason that Reardon's selfish act of developing the next level of steel innovation could not logically "contribute to society as a whole'. Why would one exclude the other?

Firstly there is no such entity as "society".

Secondly Readon's selfish actions benefitted other INDIVIDUALS who worked in his factories.

Thiirdly, crony capitalism, fascism and socialism are all collectivist in nature and are all the same thing regardless of the variations.

Lastly, khalling was correct that we should all define our terms so that we all know what is meant by "fair" and "honest" .

Thanks for your reply ObjectiveAnalyst. Agree with your first statement 100 percent. Will research the federalist and anti-federalist story. It lends itself to the idea of history repeating. I thought we as a species were supposed to "learn", maybe not....

the professor framed her argument to the "good of society." This implied "a" goal. it is a result.secondary, not primary.
"Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it—at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens." The Fascist New Frontier, AR
Problem with the word "fair" is it does not mean to all people that rights are respected. ie. any speech by our current president. Fair is always the word they use to avoid talking about natural rights. crony capitalism is a term used oft to SMEAR capitalism and is a contradiction in terms logically. so, I, don't want you to use it. of your own free will of course

An excellent brief!

Not so quick!

There is no reason that Reardon's selfish act of developing the next level of steel innovation could not logically "contribute to society as a whole'. Why would one exclude the other?

He could have accomplished this for his own personal interests (which he did), without any thought whatsoever as to the advancement of society as his goal. That is what happened.

Crony capitalism can definitely exist independent of Fascism. They also co-exist, but are not always one-in-the-same.

A "fair, honest, fight" assumes that rights are being honored...or it isn't either "fair", or "honest". Pretty simple.

She was not confused, and wasn't interested in parsing words.

Well done. The professor is confused. As Reason declines in a society, so does the specificity of words. One can only hope that AR is required reading in her classes so that the students might have a chance to judge for themselves.

Hello sierrasky,
Statists, collectivists, progressives, marxists, liberals,... whatever name they find suitable to adopt in order to obfuscate their connection to their history or true ideology they will... It is a matter of what sells best at any given point in time. Modern liberalism is far removed from traditional liberalism.

There is a great story surrounding the founders use of the terms federalist and anti-federalist shaped by this same misdirection, employed by the self named "federalists" who were in fact more nationalist.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Fairly new to the Gultch, so pardon any displays of ignorance, please. :). After viewing the video, was thinking about the difference between classical vs modern liberalism. As such, it seems that classic liberalism is reflective of conservative free market, or libertarian, valuing individual creativeness, individual innovation and liberty. The approach of modern liberalism seems so far removed from that premise, supporting collectivism, socialist tendencies and worse, the dependence, not independence of the individual.
Sad.....

the professor does a good job. But for Objectivism, here's where she misses.

She says Rand's main point is individualism. Objectivism does not start with individualism, it starts with reason and Man as Man.
she then talks about characters in AS. and she brings up early in the discussion how their creativity "contributes to society as a whole." this is not a randian concept.
the Professor does not know what capitalism really is. check 3:35. crony capitalism is really fascism-not capitalism at all.
She then confuses capitalists with businesspeople. The two are not the same at all.
Then she says capitalism is about having a "fair, honest, fight .." it is not about "fair." it is about rights. she does bring it home with several strong statements about freedom.
She skims the top of a good economic argument but that is about the depth she got the plot of the book. On society, she did not speak to altruism, reason, objective reality. I'm not sue of her goals, but society was a cornerstone of the discussion. Might she make an argument for capitalism as being the greatest good for society? She recognizes Rand would not agree to that, but she frames the entire discussion that way.